tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post7543885745876536463..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Buying milkRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-69129967673008844662010-07-25T21:00:59.549-04:002010-07-25T21:00:59.549-04:00JAMES SAID:
"I'm sure many are, but aren...JAMES SAID:<br /><br />"I'm sure many are, but aren't many radically mistaken within their Christian outlook as well? How would they know, given our tendency towards self-deception? I'm not asking you to defend the truth of God or even the truth of the Bible. I'm asking how you know that your particular vision of it is indeed the truth, given you awareness that we are prone to deceive ourselves?"<br /><br />When you talk about the tendency towards radical deception, what's your frame of reference? Is that given atheism? Christian theism? The elect? The reprobate? Heresy?stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-88419498441265265752010-07-25T02:54:32.234-04:002010-07-25T02:54:32.234-04:00JD Walters said:
I don't think this is a very...JD Walters said:<br /><br /><b>I don't think this is a very good apologetic, for two reasons: 1) the beliefs presupposed by these actions do not amount to full-blown Christianity, not by a long shot and 2) even if they did, merely assuming certain beliefs are true in our actions does not guarantee that they are. Jones' argument seems to be that, since those actions seem to presuppose a world with certain characteristics, and only Christianity can underwrite those characteristics, Christianity must be true. But people can assume all sorts of things in their actions that aren't true and still get along fine. For example, studies have shown that most people act as if objects need to be continually pushed in order to stay in motion. This is wrong, but for practical purposes it doesn't make much difference in people's daily life. If there is a successful transcendental argument for the Christian God, it will have to be based on the preconditions of other kinds of human experiences.</b><br /><br />Fair points, JD.<br /><br />That said, I should note:<br /><br />* I haven't said the TAG is above criticism.<br /><br />* Others like Greg Bahnsen and Michael Butler have attempted to deflect the objections you've raised (e.g. see Butler's paper <a href="http://www.butler-harris.org/tag/" rel="nofollow">here</a>).<br /><br />* Speaking more broadly, James Anderson has some trenchant thoughts on the TAG <a href="http://www.proginosko.com/docs/IfKnowledgeThenGod.pdf" rel="nofollow">here</a> (PDF).Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-79307226240519782242010-07-24T14:16:29.051-04:002010-07-24T14:16:29.051-04:00I don't think this is a very good apologetic, ...I don't think this is a very good apologetic, for two reasons: 1) the beliefs presupposed by these actions do not amount to full-blown Christianity, not by a long shot and 2) even if they did, merely assuming certain beliefs are true in our actions does not guarantee that they are. Jones' argument seems to be that, since those actions seem to presuppose a world with certain characteristics, and only Christianity can underwrite those characteristics, Christianity must be true. But people can assume all sorts of things in their actions that aren't true and still get along fine. For example, studies have shown that most people act as if objects need to be continually pushed in order to stay in motion. This is wrong, but for practical purposes it doesn't make much difference in people's daily life. If there is a successful transcendental argument for the Christian God, it will have to be based on the preconditions of other kinds of human experiences.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-28624798075541051152010-07-24T08:07:30.569-04:002010-07-24T08:07:30.569-04:00Joeblo said:
Neat thought experiment, but it bega...Joeblo said:<br /><br /><b>Neat thought experiment, but it began to slide towards the absurd around paragraph 5.</b><br /><br />This is just an assertion. You don't provide any reasons for why you think it's absurd.<br /><br /><b>Explain how purchasing milk leads to the rejection of materialism and evolution.</b><br /><br />Explain how your contention follows from the actual argument.<br /><br /><b>Then please publish this explanation in Nature so the scientists caught up with such a silly concept can move on to more important tasks.</b><br /><br />1. Why bother publishing it at all if you apparently already know it's "a silly concept" (<i>a priori</i>)?<br /><br />2. But if it were to be published in a top scientific journal like <i>Nature</i>, then it'd mean an influential slice of the scientific community takes it seriously enough to warrant its publication, which in turn would mean it's not as "silly" as you originally thought it was, since publication in a leading scientific journal is evidently how you arbitrate seriousness vs. silliness. (But perhaps you meant to say <i>if</i> it could be published in <i>Nature</i>, then it'd be "important." If so, then you didn't word it well.)<br /><br />3. Of course, it'd make far more sense to publish it in a philosophical or theological journal than a scientific journal. He's not running a double-blinded clinical trial to see how effective drug x is in treating men with malignant pancreatic neoplasia, for example.<br /><br />4. You assume publishing in a scientific journal is "more important" than what the author is doing in his article. Again, you don't provide any reasons for why you think so.<br /><br />5. Science itself would be "silly" if it lacked proper philosophical grounding.<br /><br />6. Your comment isn't published in <i>Nature</i>. How then should others regard your comment?Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-53064553437460214822010-07-24T04:13:20.950-04:002010-07-24T04:13:20.950-04:00Neat thought experiment, but it began to slide tow...Neat thought experiment, but it began to slide towards the absurd around paragraph 5. <br /><br />"When you calculate your available change, compare the price of the milk, and make the exchange with the clerk at the register, you engage in a complex array of thought processes involving nonmaterial rules of reasoning, thus showing your rejection of materialism and evolution."<br /><br />Explain how purchasing milk leads to the rejection of materialism and evolution.<br /><br />Then please publish this explanation in Nature so the scientists caught up with such a silly concept can move on to more important tasks.Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01807521208323669248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-20701361125605828302010-07-24T02:02:08.762-04:002010-07-24T02:02:08.762-04:00James,
I'd recommend you do a search on the r...James,<br /><br />I'd recommend you do a search on the relevant literature by people like John Frame, James Anderson, Steve Hays, Paul Manata, Sean Choi, etc. They've analyzed TAG in quite a lot of depth.Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-66743367312000094552010-07-23T16:53:48.409-04:002010-07-23T16:53:48.409-04:00"Could you be radically mistaken in your non-..."Could you be radically mistaken in your non-Christian outlook?"<br /><br />I'm sure many are, but aren't many radically mistaken within their Christian outlook as well? How would they know, given our tendency towards self-deception?<br /><br />I'm not asking you to defend the truth of God or even the truth of the Bible. I'm asking how you know that your particular vision of it is indeed the truth, given you awareness that we are prone to deceive ourselves?<br /><br />With what or whom do we validate the knowledge we claim to have?Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01694207997231305470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-59056943731478909402010-07-23T16:17:23.978-04:002010-07-23T16:17:23.978-04:00Wow... that's cool.
Next question, how many r...Wow... that's cool.<br /><br />Next question, how many readers can even consider this short essay with objectivity, without self-deception? Matthew 7:14zostayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07616212672179956374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-56839042316890844412010-07-23T11:14:31.844-04:002010-07-23T11:14:31.844-04:00Hi Patrick,
Thanks for posting this. I kinda rem...Hi Patrick,<br /><br />Thanks for posting this. I kinda remember reading this somewhere (I don't remember where), and I liked it then and I like it now.<br /><br />Good stuff!Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.com